In Reinventing the State, twenty - one leading Liberal Democrats set out
what social liberalism means in the 21st century.
Not exact matches
There were frequent comparisons of the best in «evangelicalism» with
what seems to them the worst in «ecumenism»... The most frequent charges against us were theological
liberalism, loss of evangelical conviction, universalism in theology, substitution of
social action for evangelism, and the search for unity at the expense of biblical truth.
The Dolan Project, in other words, is much less a matter of new facts than of new interpretive filters, of «a tendency to endorse as theological
liberalism what the old [historiography] endorsed as
social and procedural
liberalism.»
What does this mean for the future of
social liberalism?
A number of features stand out: gender; left - wing identity;
social liberalism; campaign activism; feelings about the leadership; and the possibility that the ranks of the newer members, and those that support Jeremy Corbyn, may have been swollen by
what we call «educated left - behinds» — people who, given their qualifications, might have been expecting to earn more than they currently do.
His predecessor, Paddy Ashdown, has described him as having moved the Liberal Democrats «to
what you might call the right... The
liberalism of the old Liberal party was a comfortable
social liberalism, which didn't take into account economic liberty as well as
social liberty.
A wise third party (and the Libertarians are not wise) would seek to claim the fiscal conservative mantle while redefining «
social conservatism» as a form of
liberalism and embracing
what we now call «
social liberalism».
True artists will always be free in their submission only to one cause - not fame or celebrity, not a career, not pieces of paper from universities, but to that of whether that colour can possibly be right, whether in saturation it is discordant with the image intended, whether a composite form is distractingly discordant to the whole, (as well exemplified in the Angel of the North), not the political agenda of
Liberalism in all things - to do as one likes privately or publicly so call it art «because I say it is», or to be «relevant» to a «handout dogma» by revered establishment figures of any description: nothing, as Sickert put it, that follows a «finicky programme of
social pieties», and again as he says, quite rightly, defining art as «
what I do» - in essence a rigid and confining agenda of a politicised mind.